Justice Amit Seth, Madhya Pradesh HC

While granting compensation of Rs 8,25,500 in a motor accident case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that an Aadhaar Card is an identity document which cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of the age of its holder. The High Court thus relied upon the postmortem report, holding it to be a more reliable basis for determining the age of the deceased.

The High Court was considering an appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellants-claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting compensation of Rs 5,45,000 along with interest on account of the death of minor, deceased Harendra Singh Baghel, in a motor accident.

The Single Bench of Justice Amit Seth held, “So far as the determination of the age of the deceased is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has relied upon the Aadhaar Card and determined his age as 14 years, 7 months and 9 days. However, the postmortem report (Ex.P10), which contains the medical opinion regarding the age of the deceased, records his age as 13 years. An Aadhaar Card is primarily an identity document and cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of the age of its holder. On the other hand, the age recorded in the postmortem report is based upon medical assessment conducted in the course of postmortem examination. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds the medical opinion recorded in the postmortem report to be a more reliable basis for determining the age of the deceased. Accordingly, the age of the deceased is taken as 13 years at the time of the accident.”

Advocate Dharmendra Rishishwar represented the appellants/claimants while Advocate Bal Krishna Agrawal represented the respondent/Insurance Company.

Arguments

It was the case of the appellants/claimants that, at the time of the accident, the deceased, Harendra Singh Baghel, was a minor and was held by the Claims Tribunal to be aged about 14 years, 7 months and 9 days. However, the notional income was determined by the Claims Tribunal at Rs.25,000 per month, whereas, in view of the judgments, the notional income ought to have been ascertained on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled workman on the date of the accident, i.e., Rs. 7,950 per month.

Reasoning

Considering the applicable guidelines of the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority (MPSLSA Guidelines), the Bench held that the monthly income of the deceased is to be taken as Rs 7950. “Accordingly, after taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,950/-, the annual income comes to Rs.95,400”, it stated.

Relying on the postmortem report, the Bench held the age of the deceased to be 13 years at the time of the accident. “Having regard to the age of the deceased, which was below 15 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier to be applied in the present case is 15 and not 18, as applied by the learned Claims Tribunal”, it added.

The Bench also awarded an amount of Rs 40,000 each to the appellants-claimants towards loss of parental consortium, totalling Rs 80,000. The appellants/claimants were further entitled to Rs 15,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs 15,000/- towards loss of estate.

The Bench thus held the appellants-claimants entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,25,500 as against Rs 5,45,000 awarded by the Claims Tribunal. “Consequently, the appellants-claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,80,500”, it held while partly allowing the appeal.

Cause Title: Rajesh Singh and Anr v. Rahul Singh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:33646)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Dharmendra Rishishwar

Respondent: Advocate Bal Krishna Agrawal

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: